www.youtube.com/watch?v=CksdsnZ3wHE

“It’s pretty simple: marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a historic doctrine driven deep into the Bible, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, and it’s a perfect example of what I mean by the rise of paganism. The effort to create alternatives to marriage between a man and a woman are perfectly natural pagan behaviors, but they are a fundamental violation of our civilization.”

Gingrich also doubled down on earlier statements by saying during the call that “a lot of what surrounds us today is paganism,” drawing parallels to Christianity during ancient Rome. In Gingrich’s mind secularism and paganism seem to be one and the same, a force that joins Islam in a two-pronged “war” against Christianity. You can download and listen to the entire conference call, here.

Newt Gingrich has got your nose. Photo: New York Magazine

I have two responses to Gingrich’s comments, and this conference call. First, for a historian, Gingrich seems to have a shaky grasp on the history of marriage. Marriage has been an ever-shifting thing, practiced in a number of ways, and Christians did not always treat it as a holy condition. I’m certainly happy to agree that Pagans are open towards creating “alternatives” to the modern rigid constructions of this social contract envisioned by conservative Christians, but I part ways with candidate Gingrich on the idea that this is a “violation” of Western civilization. Perhaps he should remember that is was the “pagans” he seems to have no trouble vilifying that invented Western civilization.

My second response has to do with Florida. While it may seem like good politics to construct religious straw men that Christians can alternatively fear and revile, the state is far more diverse than many give it credit for. Florida has thriving Pagan, Hindu, Haitian Vodou, Santeria/Lukumi, and other non-Christian/non-Abrahamic faith communities. What could be beneficial in a primary might come back to harm you in a general election. I doubt that Gingrich much cares about this, but future politicians should. As I said not too long ago at The Washington Post:

America’s religious diversity isn’t simply a stock phrase to pull out when describing the virtues of our country. According to the Pew Forum, 16.1 percent of Americans claim no formal religion, while another 2.3 percent are part of religious tradition outside the Christian-Jewish-Muslim monotheistic paradigm. Those aren’t insignificant numbers, and they put the often lumped-together “other/unaffiliated” category on a statistical par with evangelical and mainline Protestants. Despite this, moral debates are almost always framed along a left-right Christian axis; Rick Warren gets to interview Obama and McCain, while Hindus, Pagans, Buddhists, and practitioners of indigenous traditions rarely get to ask questions on a national stage.  Gov. Johnson’s courage in talking to religious minorities might have been driven by a modicum of desperation in getting his message out, but it should be seen as a harbinger of what campaigning to religious groups will be like in the future.”

Declaring yourself in de facto opposition to America’s religious diversity and secular government should automatically disqualify you from running our executive branch. Our president is the duly elected representative of all its citizens, not just its Christian citizens. Assembling campaign faith coalitions that speak to one very narrow idea of religion alienates instead of unifies, and when that coalition claims that electing anyone outside their boundaries will bring about the end of civilization, it sends a dangerous signal. Americans shouldn’t be worrying about “Pagan behaviors.” Instead, they should worry about the “Christian behaviors” of Newt Gingrich and those like him.

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich

“…contrary to the whims of lazy pundits, the waning of enthusiasm for battling over “social issues” is not due to higher concerns about jobs, the deficit, and the economic future [...] Put simply, the Christian Right is getting old. According to the largest and most recent study we have of American religion and politics, by Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell, almost twice as many people 18 to 29 confess to no faith at all as adhere to evangelical Protestantism. Young people who have attended college, a growing percentage of the population, are more secular still. Catholicism has held its own only because the Church keeps gathering in newcomers from Latin America, Africa, and Asia, few of whom are likely to show up at a Santorum rally. To their surprise, Putnam and Campbell discovered that conservative preachers infrequently discuss polarizing issues from the pulpit. Sermons about hunger and poverty far outnumber those about homosexuality or abortion. On any given Sunday, just one group of Christians routinely grapples with divisive political issues: black Protestants, the most reliably Democratic constituency of them all.”

Kazin concludes that if conservative Christians “hope to transform our pluralistic, profane culture into a new Jerusalem”, they will have to “find new holy battles to wage.” So are the culture wars essentially over? Are Christian conservatives no longer kingmakers in the Republican Party? Not so fast, says Ed Kilgore, who notes that while the Christian Right has botched attempts to control this election cycle, news of their demise is greatly exaggerated.

“It is true that they have been less conspicuous in this campaign, and less united in candidate preferences. But if they haven’t been able to pull their muscle behind a single candidate, that’s not a sign that they are on the wane—it’s a sign that, as far as the Republican Party is concerned, they have already won. Look at the potential nominees: Unlike 2008, no candidate in the field is pro-choice by any definition. Only Ron Paul seems reluctant to enact a national ban on same-sex marriage. Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum. and Herman Cain have been vocal in fanning the flames of Islamophobia; again, only Paul has bothered to dissent to any significant degree.”

Kilgore points out that the fight over abortion, a key issue for Christian conservatives, is escalating at the state level, not diminishing, and that a “younger generation of culture warriors, some more radical than their elders, are just beginning to come into view.” Indeed, if there’s been one new phenomenon this year within Christian Right circles, its been the emergence of controversial neo-Pentecostal spiritual warriors into the mainstream. Journalist and author Jeff Sharlet has long argued against assertions that the Christian Right will fade away after a bad election or two, or because the current crop of leaders are growing old. That they have been a part of our spiritual makeup since the beginning.

“We don’t like to consider the possibility that they are not newcomers to power but returnees, that the revivals that have been sweeping America with generational regularity since its inception are not flare-ups but the natural temperature of the nation. We can’t conceive of the possibility that the dupes, the saps, the fools—the believers—have been with us from the very beginning, that their story about what America once was and should be seems to some great portion of the population more compelling, more just, and more beautiful than the perfunctory processes of secular democracy. Thus we are at a loss to account for this recurring American mood.”

So should we worry about the Religious Right? In so far as they battle against the rights and freedoms of religious minorities, yes, we should. Bad candidates and legislative setbacks don’t erase generations of grassroots organizing from the pulpits, and it would be folly to believe otherwise. Until demographics finally hit that magical tipping point, and conservative Christianity becomes simply one voice among many, vigilance is the watchword. As for Newt Gingrich’s ethical problems, we should never forget that evangelicals love a good forgiven sinner.

Gary Bauer

“A thought experiment: Imagine a presidential candidate. He has spent years in politics, rising to become a trusted leader in his party. He also has spent time in the business world, has an impeccable personal life, a deep understanding of the issues, and is eloquent in speech and moderate in temperament. Sounds like a dream candidate, right?”

I see where this is going; this is obviously about Mitt Romney, right? I mean, Bauer is part of an upcoming semi-secret meeting of conservative Christian presidential kingmakers that some have defined as a “stop Mitt” gathering, and Bauer has endorsed social conservative darling Rick Santorum, the official not-Mitt of Iowa. But then, Bauer throws us a rhetorical curve-ball!

“But imagine that, along with those qualities, the candidate is also a Wiccan, a modern pagan. It’s not an implausible idea. Some estimates put the number of American Wiccans at more than 100,000. It’s safe to say most voters would at least have a few questions for our hypothetical candidate. After all, Wicca involves magic, spell-casting and sorcery — not exactly mainstream religious practices. But would this candidate’s beliefs make you question his fitness for office? Would you oppose him based solely on his faith?”

A Wiccan candidate! The other religious other in America! Is Bauer going say that a politician’s positions and experience are more important than their personal faith? Would Bauer endorse a sufficiently conservative Pagan?

“The question Americans should ask is not whether a candidate is affiliated with a particular faith but rather whether that candidate’s faith makes it more likely he or she will support policies that align with their values.”

Oh man, he’s totally going to say he’ll vote for a Pagan!

“I wouldn’t vote for a pagan, I’d vote for a Catholic or a Jew whose policies reflect the traditional understanding of marriage and defend the sanctity of human life much more readily than I would vote for the man next to me in the pew who doesn’t support those things.”

What? Wait a minute, what about all the rhetoric about supporting policies that align with a voter’s values? I guess the minute you enter the world of “magic, spell-casting and sorcery” all other considerations fly out the window. You see, when it comes down to it, voting for a non-Christian is anathema to the conservative Christians who make up a large portion of the Republican party’s base. The not-so-secret “controversy” about Romney among Christian conservatives is that many of them think Mormon’s aren’t Christian either, but he’s the likely candidate so the smarter leaders are looking for some other way to tip-toe around the issue (like talk about “Wiccans”).

The funny thing is, a Pagan politician isn’t a hypothetical. There’s (the very conservative) New York City Councilman Dan Halloran, a Heathen whose had quite a bit of attention focused on his faith. There’s Jessica Orsini, Alderwoman in Centralia, Missouri, a Hellenic polytheist who recently celebrated Columbia, Missouri’s decision to outlaw gender discrimination. In November Virginia Pagan Lonnie Murray won a seat on the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District (TJSWCD), and Rita Moran, chairperson of the Kennebec County (Maine) Democratic Committee, served as an openly Pagan at-large national delegate for Obama at the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver. That’s only a sample, a selection of higher-profile examples. There are many more Pagans working at the grass-roots in local committees, groups, and political parties. A Pagan politician isn’t merely plausible, it’s an ongoing reality. Something that I suspect will change the dynamics of Bauer’s thought experiment.

The dominance of Christianity in the United States, while still impressive, is “softening.” Our population becoming polarized between those who place religion first, and those who don’t. The reality of non-Christian politicians on the national stage a growing certainty. We already have openly Buddhist members of Congress, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii and Hank Johnsonof Georgia, and its only a matter of time before we elect our first Hindu to Congress. The “thought experiment” of a non-Christian high-profile candidate has become a fact of life, one that conservative Christians will have to increasingly wrestle with. All that said, I do agree with the sentiment, if not the wording, of Bauer’s closing point.

“It’s important to ask candidates about their beliefs, in part because politicians frequently exploit religious faith [...] we could ask the Wiccan candidate whether sorcery would be covered under his health care reform proposal. [...] Americans have not only a right but a responsibility to consider the values of those who seek to lead them — whether they arise from life experience, political ideology or religious belief.”

If Wiccan “sorcery” is fair game in a hypothetical political campaign, doesn’t that mean questions over Dominionism and associations with fringe Christian groups by top-tier Republican candidates are also fair game? If Bauer is correct, and lets assume that he is, we’ve been far too easy on the current crop of Republican hopefuls, and reporters should ask for more robust and challenging questions regarding how their faith informs their politics. In the meantime, I hope Mr. Bauer comes up with some fresher thought experiments.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZeVqj-t1U0

The ad begins asking of Huntsman, “The Manchurian Candidate,” “What’s he hiding?” It features “traditional” Chinese music and clips of Huntsman doing things in China: speaking Mandarin, taking interviews from Chinese press, walking around in China– you get the idea. It then asks a series of questions during the montage like, “American values, or Chinese?” and “Weak on China? Wonder why?” It also takes a detour to slam him for being Mormon (“A man of faith?”) before the coup de grace, a doctored photo of Huntsman in what appears to be Maoist military garb. Essentially, it makes “Willie Horton” look like Will.I.Am’s “Yes We Can” ad.

The ad was placed by an independent group calling itself “New Hampshire Liberty 4 Paul,” and was quickly disavowed by the Ron Paul campaign, who said it should be taken down (Paul supporters have also traveled down the rabbit hole of trying to prove the ad was a “false flag” designed by Huntsman to discredit their candidate). Naturally, the ad was condemned by a variety of critics, including the Hindu American Foundation, who took exception to the implication that Huntsman raising his adopted Indian daughter Asha within a Hindu context was something that should be attacked.

The Huntsmans with daughter Asha Bharati

”This deplorable ad is blatantly racist and religiously intolerant, and crosses all lines of acceptable political discourse,” said Suhag Shukla, Esq., HAF’s Managing Director and Legal Counsel. “Instead of vilifying Governor Hunstman, he should be applauded for being open minded enough to raise his adopted daughter as a Hindu.”

This ugly ad, however, does highlight qualities about Jon Huntsman that I think are admirable, and speak to the best qualities of our nation. The willingness to put duty above party affiliation by accepting the position of Chinese ambassador from President Obama, the willingness to learn a second language in order to better communicate our values, and understand another culture’s values, the recognition that diplomacy can be a strength, and a commitment to religious pluralism that includes raising an adopted daughter “to learn about and appreciate her native culture and the faiths associated with it.” I may not agree with Jon Huntsman on a number of issues, but if he were elected president I wouldn’t constantly worry that he would try to imprint his beliefs on the many religious minorities that call this country home, something that can’t be said for several other candidates.

Indeed, from all accounts Huntsman’s personal religious life is a mirror of America’s unique mix of faiths and philosophies, far from the political will of the Republican Party’s Christian conservative base, who see any non-adherence to a certain religio-political rigorousness as a heresy that must be punished at the ballot box. Just read this excerpt from a National Review article on Huntsman’s religious outlook.

Last year, Huntsman told Fortune that he receives “satisfaction from many different types of religions and philosophies” and doesn’t consider himself to be “overly religious.” (ANew York Times article last week noted that Huntsman’s comments to Fortune made a splash in his home state; “many Utahans can recite from memory” Huntsman’s quote, according to the Times.) In March, the Washington Post reported that “Huntsman’s relatives and friends describe him frequently as an independent thinker, unbeholden to any church or party doctrine,” and that “many Republicans faithful to the church in Utah dismissed Huntsman as a ‘Jack Mormon,’ a derogatory term referring to a non-practicing Mormon.”

As the Pew Forum has pointed out, “the religious beliefs and practices of Americans do not fit neatly into conventional categories.” 35% of Americans attend more the one place of worship, and sizable minorities mix Western and Eastern forms of religion into their daily lives. Huntsman and his “satisfaction from many different types of religion” is mainstream, yet every election cycle the Christian character, and only the Christian character, of each candidate is scrutinized. Any hint that a candidate might enjoy, or even tolerate, the practices the other faiths instantly make him suspect, and a target for attack. If you need an example, just look at what happened when Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear, who is an ardent Christian, attended a traditional Hindu blessing.

If Jon Huntsman’s campaign has little chance of succeeding, and there’s every indication that’s the case, then perhaps he could be that prophetic voice for American pluralism within the Republican Party. That conservative politics shouldn’t be hijacked by an all-or-nothing strain of Christian belief, that melding religious orthodoxy to political stances can become toxic if left unchecked. Perhaps Huntsman could be the voice of all those Americans who attend multiple churches, or have children who are Wiccan, or Buddhist, or atheists, or those who like to do Yoga and enjoy reading their horoscopes. You know, normal Americans, the “mushy middle” that actually gives some credence to our country being a “melting pot” of ideas and cultures. Maybe Huntsman can embrace the audacity of his pluralistic life and bring us something new.

“I got to ask Barr a question I’ve wanted to ask him for quite some time. He’s repudiated and apologized for many of his previous positions and I asked him if he would repudiate his absurd anti-Wiccan crusade of 1999, when he wanted all Wiccans banned from the military. He said yes, with a bit of hemming and hawing. He said that he had reports from several military leaders that Wiccans doing rituals on military bases were causing problems and that’s why he did what he did, but that since that time it’s become clear that there are no problems with allowing Wiccans to serve and to practice their religion on military bases like any other religion. I did ask him for any specific problems that were reported to him back in 1999 by these military leaders, but he said he didn’t want to get into specifics. I’m sure that’s because there are no specific incidents and those military leaders who complained to him did so out of bigotry, or because the problems it caused were really caused by bigotry against Wiccans.”

Sadly, this change of heart seemed to only last as long as the presidential campaign, once he no longer had to curry political favor his obvious scorn for modern Paganism reemerged. Barr’s moral compass seems more guided by what will enrich him at any moment, than from a recognizable ethical philosophy, and his ongoing prominence within the Libertarian Party no doubt continues to keep many small-l libertarian Pagans at arms length from the party that purports to represent their views.

Johnson and Barr on Fox News together in 2010.

Now, it seems, there might be an alternative for Pagan libertarians/Libertarians in the form of former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, who just announced that he’s abandoning his bid for the Republican presidential nomination to run on the Libertarian Party ticket.

“This was both a difficult decision – and an easy one,” Johnson said. “I have a lot of Republican history, and a lot of Republican supporters. But in the final analysis…I am a Libertarian – that is someone who is fiscally very conservative but holds freedom-based positions on the issues that govern our personal behavior.”

You can read his full statement, here. Johnson, in stark contrast to Barr, openly courted modern Pagans in a now-famous press conference with Pagan and Hindu media representatives (The American Spectator calls him a “pro-choice pursuer of the pagan vote”). I saw it as a hopeful harbinger that our political system could embrace the full religious and philosophical diversity of our county.

“What does it all mean? I think it represents two opportunities. First, there’s an opportunity for politicians to realize that America’s religious diversity isn’t simply a stock phrase to pull out when describing the virtues of our country. According to the Pew Forum, 16.1 percent of Americans claim no formal religion, while another 2.3 percent are part of religious tradition outside the Christian-Jewish-Muslim monotheistic paradigm. Those aren’t insignificant numbers, and they put the often lumped-together “other/unaffiliated” category on a statistical par with evangelical and mainline Protestants. Despite this, moral debates are almost always framed along a left-right Christian axis; Rick Warren gets to interview Obama and McCain, while Hindus, Pagans, Buddhists, and practitioners of indigenous traditions rarely get to ask questions on a national stage. Gov. Johnson’s courage in talking to religious minorities might have been driven by a modicum of desperation in getting his message out, but it should be seen as a harbinger of what campaigning to religious groups will be like in the future.”

Already, some are wondering if a Johnson Libertarian run could act as a spoiler for the Republicans in 2012, though a Libertarian spokesperson pointed out that (aside from the libertarian-beloved Ron Paul) “you can’t spoil tainted meat.”

“All of the Republican Party presidential candidates ” except for Ron Paul ” have a track record of voting for higher levels of government spending. Many have raised taxes, supported bailouts, and/or voted to expand Big Government.

The mere fact that two Libertarian presidential candidates, one past, and one potential, could have narratives so entwined with modern Pagans is remarkable in of itself. Add to that fact that if Barr should run for the LP nomination again against Johnson (though he endorsed Newt Gingrich, so maybe he won’t) it stands to reason that their respective attitudes towards minority religions will no doubt come up in debates and news stories. Pagan leaders and media should prepare themselves now for mainstream reporters looking into the “Pagan angle” of the Libertarian Party’s 2012 candidate. At the very least libertarian/Libertarian Pagans should be pleased that the party may be moving from Barr to Johnson in 2012, one wonders how many conservative Pagans will jump ship from the Republican Party to support Johnson’s candidacy. Interesting times are ahead.

Gingrich is currently enjoying some time in the sun, after a period when many (from across the political spectrum) thought his candidacy was doomed. While it remains to be seen if this latest “not-Mitt” will manage to stay afloat, an issue I’ll leave to the political pundit class, I do have one question for the former Speaker: are we still surrounded by “paganism”?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGm_tHINZGs

You see, back in 2009, Gingrich gave a speech to the Rock Church congregation in Virginia on “Rediscovering God in America,” it was there he gave the grim news for conservative-minded Christians.

“I am not a citizen of the world. I am a citizen of the United States because only in the United States does citizenship start with our creator. [...] I think this is one of the most critical moments in American history. We are living in a period where we are surrounded by paganism.”

Oh, and he invoked St. Paul during the speech to make sure we understood what he was talking about. These comments caused quite a  bit of conversation at the time, and I even wondered if Newt knew with whom he was getting into bed with.

“Maybe Gingrich, a recently converted Catholic, doesn’t realize the dog-whistle language he’s using. When you say “paganism” to these folks, it doesn’t merely mean secularists, or modern Pagans, or atheists, it also means Catholics, and any Christian who isn’t fully on-board with their mission of ‘religious supremacy’.”

There’s been some articles recently about how conservative Christians are now flocking to Gingrich, so will this mean he’ll double down on this kind of rhetoric, or will he maintain his largely secular-ish brand of conservatism? All I want to know is, are we still surrounded?

Screenshot of the Johnson-Pagan Media Conference

Here’s a short excerpt:

“What does it all mean? I think it represents two opportunities. First, there’s an opportunity for politicians to realize that America’s religious diversity isn’t simply a stock phrase to pull out when describing the virtues of our country. According to the Pew Forum, 16.1 percent of Americans claim no formal religion, while another 2.3 percent are part of religious tradition outside the Christian-Jewish-Muslim monotheistic paradigm. Those aren’t insignificant numbers, and they put the often lumped-together “other/unaffiliated” category on a statistical par with evangelical and mainline Protestants. Despite this, moral debates are almost always framed along a left-right Christian axis; Rick Warren gets to interview Obama and McCain, while Hindus, Pagans, Buddhists, and practitioners of indigenous traditions rarely get to ask questions on a national stage. Gov. Johnson’s courage in talking to religious minorities might have been driven by a modicum of desperation in getting his message out, but it should be seen as a harbinger of what campaigning to religious groups will be like in the future.”

I hope you’ll head over and read the whole thing, and leave your thoughts in the comments section. This “town hall” has gotten far more attention than I thought it would, getting noticed by congressional paper The Hill, snarked about at Wonkette, New York Magazine, and Gawker, and reported on by New Mexico newspapers. This may not be the kind of attention Johnson hoped for, but I do think that his choice to do this will have resonance far beyond his campaign, and could start to change the way politicians view religious minorities.